Absolutely dotty! Government blows over half a million on 'vanity' makeover for website which involved moving a full stop

Ministers spent more than £500,000 of taxpayers' money on a 'vanity' makeover for the government website which critics say is little more than changing a colour and moving a dot.
The gov.uk site, used by millions for essential services such as tax returns and passport renewals, will see its traditional black masthead turned blue and its 'dot' coloured turquoise.
The tweaks were commissioned as part of 'brand refresh' with contracts totalling £532,000 handed to global ad agency M&C Saatchi.
The costly new logo, set to go live this month, has already met with ridicule from civil servants, with one mocking online: 'Did someone really get paid to move a dot?'.
Others labelled it 'cheap', 'tacky' and 'absolutely diabolical'.
Zia Yusuf, head of Reform UK's efficiency drive, last night branded the revamp a waste of public money.
He said: 'The disrespect for taxpayers' money continues to be astounding.
'Spending more than £500,000 on changing a logo on a government website is a joke at the taxpayer's expense, quite literally.
'This is just the kind of thing we have been uncovering in county halls on a daily basis. It's abundantly clear that Whitehall also needs a visit from Reform's DOGE team.'
Two contracts for the brand refresh were tendered by the previous Conservative government and carried on under Labour, according to publicly available papers.
Communications giant M&C Saatchi secured deals potentially worth up to £750,000.
A government source said the final bill came to £532,000, which the cost drawn from existing department budgets.
The new logo was criticised on web forums used by civil servants.
One said: 'As a government we are trying to maximise efficiency and save money.
'Why was this what we chose to spend time and resources on?'
Another joked: 'Reform blue for the dot. Conservative blue for the background. Are they preparing us for 2029?'
Elliot Keck, campaigns chief at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers will be baffled that hundreds of thousands have been blown on minor graphic design changes.
'At a time when public services are stretched and families are feeling the pinch, shelling out for a vanity rebrand is an insult to hardworking Brits.
'Ministers should be focusing on delivering frontline services, not petty optics.'
Officials defended the cost, stressing the six-figure bill included 'refreshing and extending' the Gov.UK brand across web, mobile and app platforms.
A government spokesman said: 'This was committed to by the previous government, with two of the three contracts signed and delivered by July 2024.
'The new government then chose to turn the rebranding and research work into consumer-friendly digital products, including our upcoming gov.uk App, gov.uk Chat and more.'
MailOnline has contacted the government for further comment.
The gov.uk website was last overhauled in 2012.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BBC News

35 minutes ago

• BBC News

'No budget' for assisted dying service, health secretary says

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said there is no budget for an assisted dying service, which MPs narrowly backed in a landmark vote on who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, posted a lengthy message on his Facebook page explaining why he voted against the other reasons, he said there was already a lack of access to high quality end-of-life care on top of tightened finances within the NHS, which could add to the pressure faced by dying patients. Streeting said he would "make sure that we do a good job with it for the country" if the legislation becomes law, but he worried MPs had made the wrong choice. The government remains neutral on the bill, which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday and will now be scrutinised by the House of Lords. MPs were given a free vote on in favour of the bill say it will give terminally ill adults the choice on how they want to die and prevent painful deaths, but critics argue it risks people being coerced into seeking an assisted his post, Streeting quoted former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown's position that "there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option... is not available", referring to sufficient end-of-life care wrote: "The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. "Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service - and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest - setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. "There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one."The MP for Ilford North pledged to work "constructively" on technical aspects of the legislation as it progresses through Parliament and stressed he had enormous respect for the bill's impact assessment on the policy published in May provided a financial analysis of the costs and savings said that in the first six months, savings for the NHS could range from around £919,000 to £ figure included hospital care, primary and community care, hospice, medicines and other care costs that someone choosing an assisted death would not the time the system had been running for ten years, savings could range from £5.84m to £ assessment found there would be costs too. Staffing an assisted dying service could cost in excess of £10m a year within a decade, while training costs in the first six months alone could be over £11m. As peers prepare to examine the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday that Lords had a duty to perform but that it should not extend to overturning the will of the Commons."Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose," she said."So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through."Dame Esther said she was resigned to the fact her own terminal cancer would probably progress to the point she will "buzz off to Zurich" to use the Dignitas clinic before the bill becomes Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, a Paralympian and opponent of the plans, told BBC Breakfast she hoped more safeguards could be introduced in the coming months."We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger," she said."We've been told it's the strongest bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation, so I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in."Another opponent, the Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin, said he believed the bill needed "forensic scrutiny". "The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people," he bill could still run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords, but the Labour MP who steered it through the Commons as a Private Member's Bill, Kim Leadbeater, said: "I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue". Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Telegraph

37 minutes ago

• Telegraph

‘We can't sell our £400k Dorset beach huts – and it's the council's fault'

The owners of Britain's most expensive beach huts have blamed the council for making the properties less desirable to potential buyers. Eight wooden huts with a combined value of £3.8 million have gone up for sale at Mudeford Spit in Christchurch Harbour, Dorset. The huts range in price from £395,000 to £439,000 – more than the average UK house price. The properties often sell extremely quickly because of their exclusive location and sea views. Last year, one sold for £485,000 in less than 24 hours. The unusually high number currently on the market has prompted concerns that the tide may be turning on a once lucrative market. Financially-struggling Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council (BCP) has been accused of using beach hut owners as 'cash cows'. The annual hut licence fee has increased by 30 per cent in the past two years to £3,240, with another 5 per cent rise planned for next year. This is in addition to the £23,100 transfer fee. Stephen Bath, who owns one of the 346 huts at Mudeford, said: 'The council uses the beach huts as a cash cow because they are in dire financial circumstances. 'I think that's what's caused people to try to sell up, hereditary owners who can't afford the rent hikes. 'The council are getting cheeky – they don't care who's paying the rent. Plus people who have bought more recently, out of towners, are also thinking it is getting ridiculous. It costs more to stay at the beach than it would to stay at somewhere like Claridge's.' Earlier this month, BCP warned it would be forced to issue a section 114 notice, a formal declaration of effective bankruptcy, without more direction from the Government on how to tackle the severe cash flow crisis associated with its growing special educational needs and disability deficit. Richard Herrett, the council's portfolio holder for leisure and destination, said the rental income for its beach huts enable it to reinvest in 'crucial front-line services that residents rely on each day – such as adult social care and children's services'. The council said the five-year pricing structure, introduced in 2022, simplified the service 'allowing everyone to know the annual cost of beach huts until 2027/28'. He added: 'Despite increasing financial constraints which many local authorities face, as a result of national pressures, the council has remained committed to that transparent pricing strategy and will do so into the future.'

The National

an hour ago

• The National

Scotland 'should not be treated as afterthought' of HS2 project

Last week, the UK Government admitted the flagship infrastructure project had been 'no less than a litany of failure'. The Labour administration blamed the previous Tory government for the overruns. The link to Scotland for the project was cancelled in June 2022, with the route from Birmingham to Manchester scrapped by former Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak in 2024. READ MORE: UK providing 'political cover' for US and Israel after Iran attack Now, the scheme is running £37 billion over budget, and has been delayed beyond 2033. The UK's Secretary of State for Transport, MP Heidi Alexander, told the House of Commons last week: 'I'm drawing a line in the sand – calling time on years of mismanagement, flawed reporting and ineffective oversight. 'It means this government will get the job done between Birmingham and London. 'We won't reinstate cancelled sections we can't afford.' Alexander (above) also admitted there was 'no reasonable way to deliver' on the 2033 target for the first trains to run between London and Birmingham. The SNP are now urging the UK Government to look again at extending the line to Scotland, after taxpayers north of the border will have contributed to the project but see no benefit. Willie Coffey, SNP MSP, said: 'The fact the UK cannot construct a high-speed rail network - the norm in many countries around the world - speaks for itself. 'While we know HS2 won't have any stations in Scotland, with the way things are going it'll be lucky to have any stations in England either.' Coffey pointed to claims made during the 2014 independence referendum that a Yes vote would jeopardise Scotland's opportunity to benefit from HS2 'only to find that promptly after the referendum the connections to Scotland were ditched'. READ MORE: Douglas Alexander refuses to set out route to Scottish independence 'This is nothing new sadly, 30 years ago we were promised that Scotland would be connected to the Eurostar - but that was dumped despite Scotland's sizeable contribution to paying for the creation of the Channel Tunnel,' he added. "Promises broken and public money squandered is par for the course for Westminster. It's clear we need to get Scotland's finances and transport investment out of the hands of Westminster and into Scotland's hands with independence." It comes after new HS2 Ltd chief executive Mark Wild said the 'overall situation with respect to cost, schedule and scope is unsustainable' in a letter to Alexander. He said costs would continue to rise if ministers did not renegotiate engineering contracts awarded in 2020. Wild also said that the testing phase alone would be likely to take three years, rather than the 14 months that had been previously assumed. The Department for Transport has been contacted for comment. The £3bn Scottish link to HS2 was quietly dropped by the then-Tory government just 30 minutes before the result of a no-confidence vote on Boris Johnson was announced. When Sunak cancelled the Manchester leg at the 2023 Tory party conference, he said the money would be diverted to other public transport projects and roads in the North of England and the Midlands.